Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cancer breakthrough stuns scientific world
itechnology ^ | September 05 2002 at 08:26PM | Steve Connor

Posted on 09/10/2002 7:16:04 PM PDT by mjp

Cancer breakthrough stuns scientific world

September 05 2002 at 08:26PM

By Steve Connor

Scientists have successfully destroyed cervical cancer cells using a revolutionary new technique which is being hailed as one of the most important developments in medicine for decades.

The technique, called RNA interference (RNAi), completely eliminated all the cancer cells growing in a test tube yet left healthy cells unharmed. The scientists called the results "absolutely remarkable".

As the findings were released on Thursday, it emerged that another team of researchers were planning the world's first clinical trial of the technique, this time on a group of Aids patients. The trial is expected to begin within the next two years.

'I've been in research a long time and this was fantastic' RNAi works by "silencing" harmful genes. Excited scientists believe it could be used to turn off the genes of infectious viruses or human tumour cells that have turned malignant, rendering them harmless.

A study published yesterday in the journal Oncogene demonstrated that RNAi efficiently switched off the genes of the human papiloma virus, which triggers cervical cancer in women. All cancerous cells growing in a test tube died, leaving normal cells untouched.

Professor Jo Milner, who led the investigation at the University of York, said that in her long career as a cell biologist she had never before witnessed such a powerful anti-cancer agent which was so highly specific at targeting tumour cells.

"The successful elimination of the cancer cells, without adverse effects on normal cells, is absolutely remarkable. I've been in research a long time and this was fantastic," she said.

Milner's team targeted the RNAi against two genes of human papiloma virus. By silencing one gene, the tumour cells stopped growing. By silencing the other, all the cancer cells "committed suicide".

Because the treatment had no effect on uninfected human cells, this is strong evidence that RNAi would be unlikely to produce the harmful side-effects seen when other cancer treatments are used on patients.

Milner said she intended starting clinical trials as a potential treatment for cervical cancer within five years. Cervical cancer is the second-most-common form of female cancer, killing 1 250 British women a year.

"Our work has identified a novel agent with major therapeutic potential for the treatment, and possibly the prevention, of human cervical cancer," Milner said.

Cervical cancer is caused when human papiloma virus attacks natural proteins in the body which are vital for the suppression of cancer. RNAi effectively restores this natural cancer-suppression by attacking the virus. - Independent Foreign Service


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cancer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-127 next last
To: justsomedude
so, who's stock should we buy?

"Martha? It's me; you didn't dump that ImClone, did you?"

61 posted on 09/11/2002 8:33:32 AM PDT by nravoter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TIGHTEN
I agree that his reply was insensitive. My reply would be more like "Why in the blue blazes don't we check this idea out with all the resources at our command, to make this available for all cancers and viruses ASAP?"

That is one of the saddest parts of the current health care system, forcing one disease to compete with another on the political playfield, instead of the medical.

Unfortunately, the politicians, drug companies and the lobbyists play that game too well. If I were overseer, I'd spend five mil on a quick study to verify, and 5 or 10 bil on the process to treatment. That is less than what we spend on marginal treatments today.

DK
62 posted on 09/11/2002 8:37:11 AM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
When you make a choice in life and you know there is a possibility you may die from making this choice, I'm not g choosing there death "they are"!

Therefore, they do not deserve a second choice to live over those that did not make a choice to die.

Sounds logical and fair to me.

63 posted on 09/11/2002 8:56:06 AM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
Personally I would decline to play G-d if given the choice. Suicide attempts are the only real choices with a high probability of death. Even that is uncertain.

You're in an ER. The nurse says to the doctor
"He ran a red light, the insurance won't pay, Doctor."
"He ate a (nationally known fast food chain) burger, the insurance won't pay, Doctor."
"He's had refined sugar for the last five years..."

Every one in the world does "risky behaviors". Politics determines which are descriminated against. Not medicine.

Choices to die are more like 500th risky thing, 1000th risky thing, 10,000th risky thing, ad nauseum.

Let's be more inclusive about life if given the choice, not less!

DK
64 posted on 09/11/2002 9:22:51 AM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

An interesting article and corresponding paper! Marking this for later read, thanks!
65 posted on 09/11/2002 9:41:02 AM PDT by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
Actually, I figured that I should probably, for myself when I get home, link to the abstract. This may be beneficial for others too!

Here it is.

66 posted on 09/11/2002 9:45:35 AM PDT by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Great, now they've done it.

Pissed off the gays REAL good this time.
67 posted on 09/11/2002 9:50:11 AM PDT by Hammerhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hammerhead; All
If you want to help find a cure for cancer go to http://www.ud.com/ and download the client. It will use your spare cpu cycles to test out potential cures for cancer.
68 posted on 09/11/2002 10:00:38 AM PDT by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
Personally I would decline to play G-d if given the choice

Who is G-d? Actually It should all be caps. "GOD" Say It GOD!

Lets pretend GOD is giving injections to cure cancer and the first in line is a practicing gay who got aids from his ALTERNATIVE LIFE STYLE. The next person in line was one who did not practice this ALTERNATIVE LIFE STYLE and listened to what GOD preached against.

Who would he give the cure to?

Lets let GOD sort it all out.

Unless the one you know G-d can do it. I doubt it.

69 posted on 09/11/2002 10:08:54 AM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; dd5339
using Drosophila embryo extract.

Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana.

70 posted on 09/11/2002 10:14:55 AM PDT by Vic3O3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Come on Thom, you know I support a person's right to take or put whatever they want into their bodies. However, a physician cannot, in good faith, be giving people substances without knowing how they will act. I can show you that Draino kills cancer cells in culture, but at the same wouldn't recommend an intavenous drip of Draino.
71 posted on 09/11/2002 10:15:04 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
Jeesh, you convinced me. What morality, what beliefs, what compassion. Your idealism is truly transformational!

Okay, you be GOD. Up to it? Or just Luciferian?

Just want to limit the people you cure, instead of increasing it?

Hey, just to let you know its fair, let's take a vote. Based on the last two emails, you win for GOD or me? Do you get it yet? Did Nels Bohr say something important when he told Einstein not tell God what to do? Are you really competing with God?

Here's a better vote:

All those for chachacha for GOD...

All those for GOD for GOD...

What's your vote?

72 posted on 09/11/2002 10:24:34 AM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
I can show you that Draino kills cancer cells in culture, but at the same wouldn't recommend an intavenous drip of Draino.

I don't recommend one group of people using force to prevent another group of people from doing whatever they think is in their own best interests to save their lives.

For what it's worth, I am opposed to the use of illicit drugs as well as intravenous Draino drips.

I just don't advocate the use of force to prevent adults from doing either one.

More lives have been lost due to government interference than have been saved. That includes the FDA and the WOD. And others.

73 posted on 09/11/2002 10:31:09 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
So, what about the scene in "Magnum Force"?
74 posted on 09/11/2002 10:33:48 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
One can get a sample issue here: http://content.naturesj.com/content/templates/co/co_main.htm?comm=09509232&token=001CD6087D290B12230780A59C5092
75 posted on 09/11/2002 10:38:38 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
In light of the following from the source you gave, what are we to make of 'how the RNAi is derived?'... They first showed that siRNAs are produced even in the absence of RNAi using Drosophila embryo extract.

Drosophilia, eh? Seems fitting that the first test subjects would be AIDS patients then if the "cure" is extracted from Fruit Fly eggs.

76 posted on 09/11/2002 10:39:54 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Why AIDS patients?
Can't spare any for normal people?

(you know, the greatest good for the greatest number?)

77 posted on 09/11/2002 10:40:03 AM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I just don't advocate the use of force to prevent adults from doing either one. More lives have been lost due to government interference than have been saved. That includes the FDA and the WOD. And others.

I am in complete agreement with you here. I don't think one group of people should keep another group of people from a new drug. However, as physician in training, I can say that I wouldn't personally use a certain substance medically until I knew it was safe to give to my patients.

78 posted on 09/11/2002 10:50:15 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
I can show you that Draino kills cancer cells in culture, but at the same wouldn't recommend an intavenous drip of Draino.

Oh, great. Now you tell me...

(Squeaking sound as BtD hurriedly turns off IV valve...)

79 posted on 09/11/2002 10:50:34 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Oh, great. Now you tell me...

LOL!

80 posted on 09/11/2002 10:57:47 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson